Posts by Steve Parks
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
a whole lot of our compatriots not knowing the difference between nationality and ethnicity
I thought the major problem was our Government not wanting to ask a question about race.Ummm, not sure. Both 'race' and 'ethnicity' can be problematic. But the latter as the connotation of something you identify yourself with - which I guess is what the government/department was after. (As opposed to race being seen more as something you are categorised as part of.)
-
If you're Pakeha, it's all too easy to think that there is no difference. I saw some unpublished analysis that showed a very high correlation between answering "New Zealander" and experiencing redness of the neck.
I haven't seen any such studies, but that was my anecdotal impression.
-
Actually, NBH is right - and it's a more successful example too, leading to ethnicity measurement being officially reviewed again and a whole lot of our compatriots not knowing the difference between nationality and ethnicity.
I suspect it was not knowing the difference that lead to a lot of people supporting that cause. That was such a puerile campaign.
-
My fear with this concept is that even if the number was high enough to register it might be seen as an act against CIR per se not a comment with regard to the issue posed.
Well, I am against CIRs per se, so that works for me.
I am against violence to children, supporting that principle is more important to me than expressing my distaste for the way the question is phrased.
Fair enough. If that's your stance, then by all mean vote 'Yes'. But I'm concerned that even so the yes-votes will be so outweighed by the no-votes that it'll be ineffective, and all you will have done is lend credence to the process. Hope I'm wrong.
-
Astroturf, of course.
-
...with all due respect to those of the male persuasion, dicks just aren't as aesthetically pleasing as breasts,
No argument there.
-
But seriously, I'm going to have to have *that* conversation with this person obviously, but I've put it off partly because I don't remember how it goes in its tactful version, and partly because in 2009 it's so rare to find people who will do that. It's almost got a retro kitsch nostalgia value.
You just need to work for a large corporation. People do that all the time. Still.
You know what I really hate? <No Steve, what do you really hate?>
I hate the trend in these forwarded emails to turn already asinine jokes into reality-based asinine jokes. ("Reality" as in reality tv.)Has anyone noticed this? Instead of just telling the joke as a story, they will often be relayed as if they are an occurrence. For example, if the joke's punchline involves someone (usually a woman) saying something stupid that gets them laughed at by all, there will be an attempt to pass it off as something that actually happened on a Sydney radio show or somesuch.
Why this need to make everything "real"? What does it say about our society?Anyway, if you'll excuse me, I've got to go chase some kids off my lawn.
-
Yup, seems like the best option to me. It feels like a case where silence (including spoiled ballots) will be interpreted as apathay.
That's one thing I was wondering about. As I said on his blog, Dennis Welch's advice of not voting at all will contribute to a low turn out, which will, as you say, be seen more as an indication of apathy than of protest or dissatisfaction with the question or with CIRs. But wouldn't a lot of invalid votes - I'm thinking an unusually high number here - be a sign of protest of some sort?
My problem is that I have a problem with the question itself, but furthermore I don't even support CIRs in general. If invalid viotes are counted, that might be the best way to register my dissatisfaction.
-
By the way, italic stuff is not quite right? I had a space between the closing underbars and the word stuff.
I think it has always functioned like that. I usually put an extra space in to avoid that problem. One space. Two spaces.
-
The Molesworth area (Backbencher, Thistle and ... that's about it) doesn't really add up to a "Leezure area". ...
Not exactly adjacent, especially when you count the long trudge along the concourse, but better than Auckland's situation.
I took Russell's comment "proximity of the stadium to Wellington's leisure precinct" to mean basically it was pretty close to the central town area in general - Featherston St, Lambton Quay, Manners and Cuba St, Courtenay Place etc. It's just a walk - it's close.